The final 2013 rankings were released yesterday updated with the weekend’s Davis Cup results which included both of Novak Djokovic singles victories. Djokovic narrowed the gap slightly but Rafael Nadal still finishes 2013 with a sizable 770 point lead in the final ATP Rankings.

With Nadal having no points to defend in the month of January and Djokovic facing an Australian Open title defense, the Spaniard is assured of maintaining the No. 1 spot through the Australian swing and even into March.

Rafa will begin dropping points in February with 400 total points coming off from both Vina del Mar (150) and Sao Paulo (250), which still won’t be enough for the Dubai-defending Djokovic to pass.

But the Serb can catapult back to No. 1 in March when Nadal has 500 points from Acapulco and 1,000 points from Indian Wells coming off.

So Djokovic could be back to No. 1 for Miami, although that’s assuming Novak defends titles in Melbourne (2,000 points) and Dubai (500 points) while Nadal struggles the month of January.

I don’t worry that much about rankings, however tourney seedings are better. Rafa never seems to worry that much either. He said once that he was ranked #2 longer than #1…….. I think he is really more comfortable at the lower rank.

Never really looked at it this way, but firstly, astonishing head to head, and the 39 times these guys have played each other. From Jon Wertheim’s mailbag.

Rafael Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic is the greatest men’s tennis rivalry ever, right? They’ve played the most matches head-to-head. They’ve met in the finals of every Grand Slam tournament. They’ve played many tight matches in the Slams. They have a close record, and it’s rare that there’s a heavy favorite for any match they play. What sayeth JW?
– Daniel Rabbitt, Morrisville, N.C.

• Um … well … hold on, I have to take this call on my other line. Honestly, I am stumped here. Nadal and Djokovic have played each other more times (39) than anyone in the Open era. Nadal leads the head-to-head 22-17 — far more competitive than Nadal’s series with Roger Federer, who trails 22-10. Nadal has met Djokovic in the final of every major, plus the year-end shebang. (Federer and Nadal have never played at the U.S. Open.) Djokovic on Monday beat Nadal for the third time in 2013. Fittingly, Nadal had beaten Djokovic three times this year as well. Oh, and they are born barely a year apart, meaning that we’re not left feeling as though one is past his prime when they play.
So, why is this not trumpeted as the great rivalry in sports, much less in tennis? Why do many consider it second to Nadal-Federer?
I’m at something of a loss here. Here’s the best I can come up with: Nadal-Federer is (was?) such a vivid contrast in styles — the easy grace of Federer versus the toil and trouble of Nadal, celestial versus earthbound, lefty versus righty, flight versus fight. (Why, you could almost write an entire book about it.) Apart from fans suffering from “rivalry fatigue” — casting their lot with either Federer or Nadal — and not having the capital to invest in another rivalry, Nadal-Djokovic doesn’t quite play out on the court. The matches are long and hard-fought, but they’re seldom pretty. And they don’t offer the same clash of styles.
If it feels like I’m rationalizing the grasping, well, you got me. Empirically and rationally, Nadal-Djokovic ought to be the ultimate rivalry. It just doesn’t quite feel like it. Yet.

What is the greater blemish on each player’s résumé: Federer’s 10-22 record against Nadal or Nadal’s never having won the sport’s fifth-biggest tournament, the ATP World Tour Finals? Isn’t tennis about how you do against the entire field (in this case, the top eight players in a season), not just one player?
– Gregory Mathews, Milwaukee
• Federer’s head-to-head record against Nadal is the great mar on his escutcheon, the zit on his résumé, as we get our mixed metaphors on. But it doesn’t preclude him from consideration for the title of greatest of all time. Likewise, Nadal’s failure to win a Tour Finals title is not insignificant. Apart from competing against the best of the best, this event is a testament to durability. Who has some petrol in the tank after the 10-month-road trip? Yet, again, Nadal’s shortcomings here don’t nullify his other achievements or take him out of GOAT contention.

I would really love for someone old enough on this site (no disrespect intended) to tell me if they ever watched Connors live? Too young to know this, and whilst there are youtube links abound, just interested in a few comments which say that Connors should also be considered as the GOAT? Why Connors and not Borg? (I know about the early retirement issue for Borg), but IS that the main factor?

Yes, he was!! But I am still a Connors fan, so, take my opinion with a grain of salt.

First, he won most tournaments than anybody. It was different, at that time, so it’s hard to tell what it would mean today.

Then, his 8 GS have a different weight. He played the AO twice at his peak; then, he was forbidden to play RG in 1974, when he was by far the best player in the world, and he played that tournament only from 1978. He would have made the grand slam in 1974, when he annihilated the opposition.

When we consider his game, although he hit flat, he was a very steady player. He had an eastern grip for the FH, and this FH remained his weak point until the end of his career. He was very aggressive, mixing baseline point construction and foray at the net — so you had everything in his game.

He had an exceptional return of serve, perhaps the best ever, if you know that he played with a racquet that gives less control than the one used today.

He improved his game in his later years, since 1985, and while he didn’t win much in this period, that’s the period I like to rewatch on youtube the most. The competition made him rethink his game, although it was a bit too late.

Connors is the player that made me root for Novak, who is — by his game — his natural heir.

I think Connors and Novak acted a lot alike……both two spoiled brats…….but are great tennis players. As a US citizen I had a hard time cheering for him or Johnny Mac. My fav at that time was Borg. Then Pete came along ….loved to watch him play…..and Andre…..liked him too. Fed came along and he was beating everyone so much tennis got boring for me……then Rafa won his first French……I’m hooked on tennis again……thanks to Mr. Nadal!!!

Vamos, Rafa and don’t get pressured by rankings…..just like age it’s only a number!!

Rafa will be playing 2 South American tournaments (on clay) in February for a possible 750 points, and while he has to defend IW, he can only earn points in Miami. Nole will then have to defend MC (most likely against Rafa)which will be no small feat. I think a lot rides on Novak defending the AO. Should #1 and #2 both just make the semis, it will mean a loss of 1200 points for Novak, and a gain of 800 for Rafa. Rafa would then go into IW with a near 2700 point advantage.

In the other thread… no matter what your argument is, what the numbers say, not only you can’t convinced them that there was no “weak era”, that he H2H is not the only thing that is relevant, etc. They even misread the numbers, which are very clear, btw, although the ELO system has his limits.

So, I really hope that Novak will restart to play well and reverse that H2H (or a younger player will emerge) so I can argue for years that he was better than Rafa, who won most of his slam before 2011, in a weak era. ;-) Anyway, I can do it already, just stating that Novak didn’t matured before 2011, and since then he has a better H2H. And Murray didn’t peaked before 2012, so, sorry, until 2012 it was a weak era… Oh, I’m confused: Wawrinka peaked in 2013, so before 2013 it was a weak era (the ultimate proof is that Roger was ranked 1 or 2 until 2013…).

Then, the fallacy of the argument of the youngster who beat the best player at his prime… Becker beat Lendl in Wimbledon, didn’t he? It was an incredibly weak era, where the second tier players like Lendl (beaten by a 17 years old kid… twice, he lost to Chang, too), Becker, Edberg, Wilander, and the like played.

An interesting indicator of greatness could be how many times a player was bagelled facing his top opponents. Without checking, I remember that Novak bagelled Andy once or twice, Andy bagelled Rafa once, Roger bagelled Rafa once… Almost everybody bagelled Rafa at least once (a very correct sentence, note “almost”, and the cunning use of “at least”)…

But, it is interesting to note how a style of play influences the choice of favourite player. You liked Borg, then Rafa, I liked Connors, then Djokovic, I could bet that most of the JMac fans were later Pete’s fans, and now fedfans.

I will agree with you on that fact……we all have our preferences on what we like in our choice of a player. Seems like I go for the serious player who never smiles. Lol I don’t know why that’s what I am drawn to. You know, Borg hardly ever changed expression…..strictly business. I remember after a match where Mac beat him in a long 5 setter…after the match the commentator wanted his thoughts about the match and he very politely told the guy to talk to John that it was his night. That stuck with me. I know most would not agree with me but I do think Rafa is humble, just like Borg. To each his own….if we all liked the same thing….life would be BORING. My thoughts, Mat Have a nice night!

As a fan of Rafas,the number 1 ranking was never at the forefront of my mind,only the icing on the cake of whats been a fabulous year,in finals this year he beat Novak,Roger,Delpo,Ferrer,Berdych,Wawa all top 10 players in finals this year,in fact he beat all the top 10 players at one time or another, except Murray as they never faced each other this year.
He beat Almagro,Isner,Raonic who are all top 2o players in finals,he beat the majority of the top 20 players at one time or another this year,so i think it was all in all pretty impressive,hes has proved he can still cut it with the very best.

The thing with Rafa is to see if he can break the usual tradition of backing up one good year with another,having said that its my belief and although other people wont agree was that 2011 was still pretty solid anyway, he faced a player that was having a kyrptonite year,that year was pretty much like this in that he made the same amount of finals,the only difference was he won many more this time,i know many will say and have said he didnt face Novak in those finals and so he got lucky blahdy blah,to which i would say BS as Novak wasnt good enough to make those finals and Rafa was,Rafa may have lost those finals to Novak in 2011 but he was good enough to make those finals,Novak this year wasnt,thats before people start using this as a counter to Rafas great year.

Similar path for me. Started off liking Connors, had a short Mac period, hopped on to the Becker band wagon for a while, then Pete. of today’s players, I pull for Rafa and Murray. I’m a fan of Novak as well but when push comes to shove, I’ll pull for Murray or Rafa when they play him. Don’t really know why.

I couldn’t stand Lendl back in the 80′s but I admire him at lot more now. His game really was quite impressive and getting to 19 slam finals and winning 8 of them in the toughest era of tennis. That’s a testament to his greatness.

SG1, now that you mentioned it, as Mac got older and became more the underdog, I warmed to him somewhat and really liked young Becker in the late 80′s (not so much in the 90′s as he got a bit full of himself).

Also, did not care for Lendl. At the time, I thought he didn’t really play agressively and would wait for his opponent to make an error but I appreciate him more today for his achievements.

Same for me. I like Rafa, then Murray/Delpo and then Nole. I’m amazed with Nole when he is able to sustain his highest level – not as consistent as 2011 but post USO he seems to be back.

However, I don’t take post-USO as seriously as the first two-thirds of the year when the majors are played. Might be the Rafan in me but I felt the same way when Sampras played so maybe it’s the oldie in me.

Up until the last 5-10 years or so, I don’t think the fall season was taken that seriously by the top players. Other than the year end championship, Sampras ignored it for the most part except for when he made a push for his 6th consecutive YE No. 1 of course.

You are coming up with a pointless rating system which states the below and expecting others to agree with you.
“7 Novak,Djokovic,SRB 2009.9 2619.4
8 Pete,Sampras,USA 1997.2 2609.6
9 Andy,Murray,GBR 2010.1 2584.2
10 Rod,Laver,AUS 1975.2 2567.8″

And when someone doesn’t agree with this list you call him a troll.
I would rather be a troll than an idiot to accept such a list.
Good luck with your ad hominem attacks.

It’s interesting to discover other tennis fans’ DNA. I was a huge Borg fan, then McEnroe – although I couldn’t stand his antics at first. I occasionally rooted for Connors, especially when he was in a scrap and fighting back. Then I became an ardent Edberg fan. I never warmed to Becker or Wilander. I almost lost interest during the Sampras years (yawn). My interest was reawakened when Federer broke through and then I became a Murray fan after his match with Rafa at the AO 2007 . So, it’s not always a logical progression.

only because a certain someone couldn’t win a slam off clay, that period is weak i guess.

I mean what drastic change had come in 2008? Novak won AO 2008 (new champ on a newly surface), JMDP won USO 2009 (a title federer should’ve had in his pockets). Other than that, it was still the same 2 guys bagging the slams till the end of 2010.

I dont know if Rafa will still be a factor in the 2016 Rio Olympics,but its fantastic to here hes thinking long term about the future,and if hes happy to play then im happy to watch him play,win or lose.

Madmax got this discussion started by asking all of us old people (LOL) if Connors was a great player. Mat4 said he was and then I put my 2¢ worth in and along came Skeezer. It all evolved out of one question about Connors…..and he was a very good player. I was a major Borg fan.

The DA along way off yet but if Rafa were to win the AO at some point between now and then,i could imagine him been very motivated in achieving a second career Golden Slam,likewise if Nole were to win the FO between now and then he will be motivated to get a golden slam too,its all so exciting seeing the goals these players are continuing to set for themselves.

“It would be ironic if Novak were to win an Olympic Gold on clay,after Rafa winning Gold on HCs,each winning Gold on each others best surfaces,oh the irony.”

TXHC,
Rafa is very unfair. He barges into others’ territories(HC, grass) quite frequently, but never allows anyone into his territory (clay). So my guess is that Nole may never win an FO or an olympic gold.

The top 8 are reaching the final stages of a slam consistently, thats your reason to call this period a strong era. Whereas from 2003-2007 players outside the top 8 or even 32 reached the later stages of a slam, so its a weak era

could be interpret another way. During 2003-2007 there were quality tennis players outside the top8 or top 20 to challenge and beat the top players in a grand slam. Now look at todays game. You don’t see anyone outside the top8 getting through a slam because they are not good enough. We have now the big 4 and the rest of the top 8. May be a few in the top 20. After that? No one, Nothing.

I wonder why players from the weak era (hewitt, haas) at the very final stage of their careers still get their hands on the players of the SO CALLED strong era (del po, novak)

@Sirius
So true. Basically, you’ll find the Vamos heads skew stats so it -Fed and +Nadull. Same ole same ole. Then comes a link, a you tube vid, and alot of Vamos’s for whatever reason they can muster. No worries, the important stats can’t be skewed, like 17 and months/years @#1.
Being the best #2 all time is not a bad thing, its just not #1.

Rafa is the best for no one was better than or equal to no. 2 for so long below age 22 Where was Fed for most of that age below 22? Below top 10. Not anywhere close to no.2. So what is skeezer boasting about? That being in the bottom of top 20 is better than being no.2? LOL!
Just like winning 2 RGs makes you a better player than winning 8 RGs? With that kind of reasoning I guess 20 is better than 2!!!!!
So let us say Fed languishing at the bottom and Rafa at no. 2 somehow makes Fed’s record superior.
Of course when both were of prime age Rafa became no. 1 and moved Fed to second best which was the right place for Fed, king of the weak era.
Rafa beat Fed on grass and hard court in addition to clay. Poor Fed had nowhere to call his own. End of weak era.
To make matters worse, there was no respite for Fed for there arose two more invincibles, Nole and Andy and Fed is now a has been.
But I guess if you are below 5 at age 32, that is somehow better than being no. 2 at age 19.
skeezer reasoning, everything Fed is great, no matter how bad. If Fed loses on a surface, it is to be totally discounted. If he wins on a surface even if in a tournament no better than an exho, somehow that tournament is as important as a slam. RG despite being a slam doesn’t count. The more you win on it, the worse it makes your legacy.
I doubt though that tennis historians will adopt skeezer logic.
Like the flat earthists, skeezer may start the FedisGOAT society which will persist in believing in the myth ignoring all facts.

Skeeze, it’s quite clear that Nadal is not very good. His competition is in the form of a weak king, a joker from Serbia, and basically a bunch of punching bags. If I go to the gym and beat up a bunch of punching bags, then can I claim I’m the greatest boxer ever? Nope.

Federer sucking + Djokovic sucking + everyone else sucking logically means that Nadal sucks a little less than everyone else. So who cares? We’re living in the weakest of weak eras, basically.

Johansson actually won the AO seeded 16 (his best other showing being a lone SF). To make the final, he beat unseeded Björkman in the quarters and unseededJiri Novak in the semis. Johansson played an uninspiring style of passive tennis. I watched the final and I thought tennis had reached a new low in terms of entertainment value when he won by beating a flaky and inconsistent Safin.

Sampras the USO that same year seeded 17 not having won a major on hard court in over five years beating an aging 32 yr old Agassi (No. 6). Did Sampras get better or was it something else.

This and what followed in subsequent years, other than Federer, was not quality tennis on a consistent basis.

All the sucking posters on this forum have sucked the life right out of me. These comments are getting really stupid…….weak era …strong era…blah blah blah, who cares?? I watch tennis to see the amazing shots that these guys can come up with. I don’t care if it’s a weak or strong era. Tennis is what it is…..sit back and enjoy!!

“I don’t know if Nadal is the best player ever. But in 2013, he convinced me: for one match, with my vital organs on the line, I would take him.
Again, I didn’t think I would ever say that. For the longest time, I was a Roger Federer guy. I believed Federer was the best tennis player in history. His game was breathtakingly complete. He has won 17 Grand Slam events, but that is not even the most impressive Federer stat.”

I was never a “Roger Federer guy” (surprise!), but I agree with the rest of that statement.

The fact is even when the So Called era started ( lets pretend it started since 2008- because it favours rafa to have the best stat and vamosheads won’t mind it ever!) fed had made 8 straight GS finals, 9 straight SF, 13 straight QFs. Mr. Consistent!

The fact is even when the So Called STRONG era started ( lets pretend it started since 2008- because it favours rafa to have the best stat and vamosheads won’t mind it ever!) fed had made 8 straight GS finals, 9 straight SF, 13 straight QFs. Mr. Consistent!

IMO A player can only be expected to beat whomever is stood in front of them at the time,so i dont think its fair to use this as basis for an argument,what i find interesting is that Rafa has almost the same number of GS that Roger had when he was the same age that Rafa is now.

Alison, you understand that. Some here, don’t. The weak era argument is nothing but to belittle federers success. What i feel is that, those who bring this Weak Era bs don’t have enough faith in their fav surpassing fed’s 17. So that, if that happens they can claim “rafa is the goat even though he has less slams than fed, because he won them in a golden era”. Yes, thats what i feel about them. And for some people here, i think its true. Thats why the weak era crap is being repeated again and again and again

i’d like them to have some faith in rafa. He still has 2-3 more years of tennis. So 2-3 more FO (at least) are possible. He may win just another AO and Wimby. He may get to 17, then 18. Wait till then. Don’t just try to make look fed worse which he never is.

I don’t think Chic is saying anything about Fed being worse. Any tennis fan on the planet knows how the records stand for now…..Rafa isn’t done yet, and as for as Fed goes…..apparently he isn’t either. When they retire, the history , or record book will be written. As Rafa has stated time and again, “We will see”…..

Sirius well exactly,i agree with everything your saying,its the reason why i dont bring up the whole weak era H2H argument up,and i dont believe its any disgrace for Roger if(been the operative word)Rafa were to surpass him,or a disgrace to Rafa if he doesnt as both are amazing players,and we are lucky as fans to have them both,Perfect Fan is a Fed fan yet he has alot of respect for Rafa,and says hes enjoy seeing Rafa trying to challenge that Federer legacy,likewise Michael fans of tennis as a whole rather than been fans of just one player or their records,personally i dont believe he will surpass Roger as another 5 seems easier said than done,i think he stands a good chance of overtaking Sampras though.

You are a nice one (said it many times but never get bored. hope u don’t too). I wish there were more fans like you and PF, michael who’d root for their fav and respect the others (or at least avoid disrespecting them on their posts)

Thanks Sirius i say what i mean and i mean what i say,its all black and white to me no grey areas, i know some people dont believe im been myself or been honest,or im just trying to please people,but i am i promise,but i suppose theres not much i can do about it if others dont believe me.

“17.
The world is round. One complete circle.
There is no “So let us say..”
Only “is”.”

The world is not a circle. That’s how it “appears” if you look from outside. The world is a sphere, not a circle.

This is the problem with you and your gangsters, you just believe that what you see from your perspective is true and you are expecting others also to agree with your blind beliefs. Beware, the truth could be different. It applies for 17 also, a hollow 17. A better perspective is required.

The only thing that p*sses me off as a Rafa fan,is when the anti Rafa fans use the whole how many GS has Rafa got off clay as a counter attack to his achievements,and the whole Nole has better numbers off clay than Rafa blahdy blah,i just wonder since when was the ATP been in the habit of regarding one surface as been less important than the rest?anyway i would/could say Rafa has 5 GS off his best surface and would/could say Novak has one GS off his best surface,but why would i do that when Novaks achievements in tennis are amazing too?hmm usually 5 GS would still be a fantastic achievement for any player even without the FO,who knows maybe one day Novak will surpass Rafa by winning 14 GS,and he too will also be regarded as a failure?

Rafa has a winning record of 11-7 against Federer, Nole, Murray combined in grandslams. None of the others have an overall winning against the other three. Greatness is not just about quantity. Quality is important too.

“Can you please give your opinion on why Rafa could win 10 slams with just 16 QF appearances, but Federer could win only 5 even though he made 22 QF appearances ?”

How about this:

Well with your reasoning to compare with Fed Rafa should win 8 more Slams ( Fed went on to win 8 more when he reached 27 )and be in 6 more Slam finals by the end of his career @ 32…….. if your comparing. ( oh btw, what era was that in? ) Being in a total of 14 more Slam finals. After all, Rafa is now only 27.
Can hardly wait to see him to that feat. Lets all relax and watch.

Its just the point you types continually do. It’s a worthless discussion imo, players records speak for themselves. Skew it, twist the stats, and walla! It could mean something different you’ve talked yourself into.

Now you change and say “his grandslam record is not well rounded. ”
WTF? Let’s ask it a different way. Who else has a better well rounded Slam record with 17 bagged? NO ONE.
EVER.

never asked for ur appreciation, nor do i need it. But as u have done it, i’d appreciate if u do the same which i know u won’t.

and in response to ur question u asked that why federer was able to win only 5 title when he made 22 qf. If u had used some of ur brain u could’ve found the answer in my post at CASE 1. Federer, aging past his prime (27+ years) had been able to win 5 titles. No other player has won more than 5 after hitting 27. Fed did quite great

Fed won 3 slam titles before turning 28 ( rafa won 2, but has chance to make 3 at the AO). Then got the AO at 28 years 5 months age. Then got the Wimby at 30 years 11 months age. He was aging (getting) past his prime years which is considered to be 24-26 years in tennis

I didn’t think one would take it as an excuse. It was just an interesting thing for me to know that tennis players who became fathers couldn’t do well on slams like they did before. Even though they don’t get pregnant, or go through the period of a woman in pregnancy. So it doesn’t affect them physically. I wonder why no male player did well on slams after becoming a parent. Thats it

i hear people say your whole life changes when you become a parent. I haven’t become one. So i don’t know the feeling

Serena is just 1 month younger to Federer. Historically the shelf life (or prime years) of female tennis players is much earlier and shorter than male players. But I have not heard anyone bringing in the age excuse for Serena. Serena’s dominance is more spread out throughout her career unlike Federer.

Slice Tennis Serena hasnt not got the competition that Federer has,Azarenka and Sharapova are fantastic against any other players but Serena makes them both look ordinary,it takes an off day for anyone to get the better of her,such is the lack of depth in the womens game,Henin and Clijsters were the only two that matched up well against Serena,but sadly both have retired.

No, you missed it by a bigger margin. Even after 26 he didn’t win 8 slams and made a further 6 finals. I guess even you have not read your favourite fed’s wiki page. Go back and read thoroughly, there are a lot more numbers you should associate with Federer other than 17. 22-10 is one of them….just saying.

“Even after 26 he didn’t win 8 slams”
Can you read? I said I missed a year.
So after 26 he won 6, and runnerup for 5. Whats your point? Rafa has some work to do to match Feds achievements in the last part of his career.
“there are a lot more numbers you should associate with Federer other than 17.”
You want to go there? Where shall we start, weeks at #1 ?

“Roger Federer became the first man since Bill Tilden in the 1920s to win the US Championships four years in a row and at 26 years of age the Swiss was now two major titles shy of equalling Pete Sampras’ career record of 14 titles.”

Oh skeezer weeks at no. 1 in the weak era have to be discounted. How can being no. 1 in such an era mean anything when there are no rivals in your age group and your nearest rival is a young lad under prime age, still not experienced, still not at full strength, still developing his game, good only on clay and is no. 2 from the age of 19 to 22?? Says much about Fed’s rivals like Hewitt, Roddick and Safin.
We saw what happened when this lad Rafa reached prime age. He stripped Fed of no. 1. So much for weeks at no. 1 in the weak era.
Any one of Rafa, Nole or Andy, if they had been in Fed’s place i.e. of prime age in the weak era with no rivals in their age group, would have had at least as many weeks at no. 1.

No matter how much the Federazzi try to gloss over the point that Rafa is 5 years younger than Fed and Rafa was not of prime age till 2008, it remains a fact that Rafa in 2008 was as old as Fed in 2003. When Toni Nadal was asked what changed between 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon, he said it was age. Rafa had grown a year older.
And we saw what happened when Rafa grew one more year in 2008 Wimbledon.
Fed finally had a true rival capable of beating him on every surface!!!!!

Yes, skeezer, you got it right except discounting Rafa’s no. 2.
Rafa being no. 2 at age 19 when players like Fed weren’t even top 20 perhaps. No sir, that was a big achievement. Remember 2000-2002 was even weaker yet Fed couldn’t be no. 2. Tut tut! It was nice of you skeezer constantly reminding us that Rafa was no. 2 when Fed at his age was no. 20.
It clearly proves Rafa was greater than Fed at all times.

Slice Tennis/Hawkeye its not Serenas fault any more than its Rogers,but i still maintain that Federers had it much harder,as he now has Rafa,Novak,Andy and Delpo,who are all years younger,ok Serena is the same age but theres nobody on the womens side as yet that can really put in a challenge against her.

I’m not necessarily opposed to arguing Nadal is better than Federer. There’s obviously an argument to be made. I don’t think it’s the case, but sure we can discuss it. However, belittling Federer’s achievements doesn’t make Nadal look better, it makes you look dumb.

I suppose Ben is a Fed fan? The double standards of the Fed fans never ceases to amaze me.
It is belittling Roger’s achievements if it is pointed out that Roger was no. 20 or worse at age 19? It is belittling his achievements if it is pointed out that nobody in his age group other than Fed was better than the field i.e. capable of consistently making most of GS finals?
But it is OK for skeezer to distort Rafa’s remarkable achievements before he reached his prime by presenting him as second fiddle to Fed without mentioning that Rafa was not of full age when he lagged behind a Fed in his prime.
So Is Fed playing 20th fiddle when he was 19 better than Rafa playing second fiddle when he was 19?
According to Ben, it is OK for skeezer to present Rafa’s remarkable dominance on clay as proving he is good only on clay despite his having won 5 GS on other surfaces?
Fed fans are constantly putting Rafa down, setting up whole sites devoted to bashing him and spreading toxic lies about him. Including on this site. Have I seen Ben protesting about the posts of pogi and others who claim Rafa is doping?
No! According to Ben, ugly lies posted about Rafa are acceptable.
But facts posted about Fed are not acceptable if they prove Rafa is better.

Anyway, I am taking a break till the Australian Open. Goodbye.
Do not belittle Rafa and then and only then you will have the moral right to talk about how sad it is that somebody is belittling Federer.
Rafa fans have been remarkably decent about Fed and haven’t flooded the websites with claims that he is doping, cheating or calling him names. Fed fans call Rafa, pig, Nadull etc. Remember FEd’s name too lends itself to insulting mutations like Pederer etc.
Be thankful for that and try to rope in your fellow posters who spread ugly lies about Rafa.

It’s fine to say Federer was ranked 20 when he was 19, but to say that Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal would have amassed as many weeks at number 1 at Federer did is pure conjecture.

Nadal’s ascent in the rankings in 2005 and 2006 were mostly a result of his success on clay. Had it not been for Federer, he probably would’ve gotten to number 1 around that time but he would’ve been more like Thomas Muster than an all time great.

When Nadal started his career, he was mainly only good on clay. Now he’s great on all surfaces, no question there.

I’m not going to protest something I think could be true.

All you guys claim is that it was such a weak era when Federer dominated. No it wasn’t. Federer was just that good. What he did was unprecendented, that’s why so many pegged him as the GOAT when he had a mere 7 slams (halfway to Sampras’s mark, 10 behind his current total). How much worse was Hewitt than Murray is now? 2004, lost to Federer in Australia, 2 QFs at FO and Wimbledon, then 2 straight finals at 04 USO and 05 AO. Skipped FO (a lot like Murray here) and then 2 straight SF at Wimbledon and USO losing only to Federer.

That’s some consistency there. Who’s to say Hewitt wouldn’t have been number 1 if Federer hadn’t been around?

No one had ever done what Federer did. No one still has. 23 straight semifinals? Next best streak is Djokovic at 14, a little more than halfway there. Nadal’s best was 5, which he did twice. It’s unparalleled. Maybe Nadal is better because he’s done other things, but no one ever made it easy for any of these guys. They’re just that good. That great.

“OK for skeezer to present Rafa’s remarkable dominance on clay as proving he is good only on clay despite his having won 5 GS on other surfaces?”
Really?
Have said numerous times that Rafa is great, and that he is now one of the best all time players. But you’re remarks speak for themselves. He dominated(continues to dominate), Clay. But winning all the Slams he has won, he has only won 5 on the 3 others? When comparing that to Fed, Fed dominates. This what will always seperate him from the rest unless we get a player who can win the amount of Slams has won on those 3 surafces.

Outside of Clay, Fed has won 7 Wimbys, 5 USO’s and 4 AO’s. Rafa’s dominance has been on Clay for the most part. Compare the Slam variation numbers.
Still, Fed was not bad at FO. He made it to 5 finals, winning 1(yes Rafa beat him in all those finals he didn’t win).

Fed came into the game with different, better abilities. When he came into the game the power hitters were in force. Hit it hard, hit it deep. Slice and variety was only used in defense. But Fed brought defense back as a weapon. He brought the slice back in as a weapon, a drop kick groundstroke, able to hit a late BH with a wrist flick for a winner CC. The tweener. An overhead winner off an opponents overhead, etc. Like I said, he changed the game. IMO he made Rafa, Nole, Murray and the rest that much better. They had to figure out new ways to beat the style of play. They did. And it made them better.

“Nadal’s ascent in the rankings in 2005 and 2006 were mostly a result of his success on clay. Had it not been for Federer, he probably would’ve gotten to number 1 around that time but he would’ve been more like Thomas Muster than an all time great.”

Ben,
Did you realize that you made an excellent point to support the weak era theory ?
In 2005 and 2006 Rafa was able to COMFORTABLY hold on the no.2 ranking mostly based on his clay results. In 2012 he was pushed out of the top 4 even though he had fantastic results on clay. Rafa is absolutely at his peak now with a strong all-surface game. But in this era I am not so confident of him maintaining even a ranking of no.2 in 2014.

You also say that without Federer Rafa would have got to No.1 mainly with clay results and it would not have meant much because of lack of competition.

What Nadal did on clay was unprecedented, too. It’s not weak competition if you’re number 1 by winning a slam and at least 2 Masters a year (which is far from all Nadal did those years). Like I said, it’d have been the same as Muster getting to 1 in 1995. Was that a weak era, too? But like Muster, Nadal probably wouldn’t have been ending the years number 1. There’s not reason to think Roddick and Hewitt wouldn’t have been amassing slams during that time had they not been constantly thwarted by Federer.

This discussion is too big. And I don’t really care to discuss it with someone who calls Federer a punching bag. Have fun in the Rafabubble.

Channel surfing just now and saw that your Warriors are playing. Gonna watch and see what they have to offer the NBA. I usually get into basketball after football is over. Have you ever heard of a golf widow?? Well, my husband is a sports widower. LOL He hates sports, except for deer hunting. Season opens tomorrow. The halftime is over so here we go!!

“What is Nadal doing that’s unprecedented?”
Only one to win three consecutive slams on three different surfaces
Only one win at least one of the four Grand Slam each year for 9 consecutive years.
Fastest to reach 400, 500 and 600 wins in terms of total matches played. He may very well break the records for 700, 800 and 900 too. These records could very well remain FOREVER.
Have a winning percentage of more than 83% against the “field”.
One of the two to have a winning percentage of more than 88% in slams.
Only one to have a winning percentage of more than 80% in masters 1000s (he has 84%)
Best career outdoor match winning percentage: 85.86% (595-98).
Only one to enter each of the four slams as seeded no.1 and win it.
One of the two to win atleast two slams on each surface.
He did all this in the strongest of strong eras.

770 points is not a lot, but you’re right that he will have to wait a bit before he can get a chance to make ground. The gap is likely to grow before it shrinks but 770 is doable in one tournament. Say Indian Wells. If Rafa loses early, it’s done. But if Nole wins the title, Rafa can still get mid way through the tournament and still lose his ranking.

Slice Tennis nice list of stats for thanks for the info,some i knew some i didnt,but its nice to kmow he has broken some records of his own,hes also i believe? won 4 tournaments at least 7 or more times RG,Monte Carlo,Barcelona and Rome,also i dont actually know if its a record,but hes beaten nearly all the top 20 players this year,with the odd exception,of the top 10 players hes beaten Novak,Ferrer,Federer,Delpo,Berdych,Wawarinka in finals this year,Isner,Raonic and Almagro all top 20 players in fanals,now thats not luck thats bloody good form.

Nice stats. Mostly accumulated on one surface no? Or a heckava lot.
Had to dig deep to cherry pick those did ya?
Now, lets have even more fun and check your “so called punching bag” and compare him to all the past present players. Take your time, it’s a lot to go through.
Cheers.

Just checked the punching bag’s stats, I was wondering how come this harmless punching bag accumulated so many records, because he was basically getting whipped by a teenage clay courter even outside clay.
When I analysed deeper I could find that even though he has had a long career (or still having), most of his impressive numbers were accumulated during a short window of 4 years and outside that window it was below average.
I also tried to compare the same with the past greats and found that NONE of them had such discrepancy in their records.
Very strange.

Too bad you didn’t care to read it thouroughly, as Fed has many all time best records. Rafa and anybody else won’t achieve in most of them in YOUR lifetime, like years at #1, consecutive finals and many off court awards like sportsman of the year and fan fav of the year.

But the idiotic rationale you give for Nadull and vamos heads its not surprising. And yes, it seems Rafa is always a work in progress,and injury waiting to happen in progress, an excuse in progress, etc.
Please keep your posting tics to a mininum.

When it comes to punching bag, pay attention, the shoe doesn’t fit, and fans know it. Who has punched the field the most in there respective careers?
Roger Federer.

Many of Federer’s records are about quantity and less of quality. Too many SFs and QFs even after 2007 and far too less wins compared to Rafa. I prefer wins than SF and QF.

“But the idiotic rationale you give for Nadull and vamos heads its not surprising.”
Name calling and personal attacks are not at all surprising from your end. What else do you know.

“And yes, it seems Rafa is always a work in progress,and injury waiting to happen in progress, an excuse in progress, etc.”
But still he whips the sheep like a punching bag and keeps winning slams in a “dominting” matter even after turning 27. But Federer was deemed past his prime by his ardent fans after turning 26.

“Who has punched the field the most in there respective careers?
Roger Federer.”
No. He is no.1 neither in terms of total wins (Connors) nor the percentage of wins (Rafa). Federer is not even top 3 in both categories.

holdserve Says:
Fed doesn’t suck. Fedfans just can’t accept that most of his 17 slams were won during the weak era and that the grand slam h2h proves Rafa is better.

Poor Fed fans. Hard to accept your hero is second best.
And skeezer, you are doing your best to make this the era of weak postings and weak logic.

November 21st, 2013 at 10:55 am

Wow! I finally get it that slice tennis and holdserve no nothing about tennis other than to hurl insults.

I finally understand that they don’t understand that it isn’t Fed’s responsibility for Rafa to make it to a slam final against Fed! (It’s his knees being the reason).

When both Fed and rafa hold the following statistics TOGETHER (called a weak era), how ignorant both these guys are.

He holds several men’s world records of the Open Era: holding the world no. 1 position for 302 weeks overall; including a 237-consecutive-week stretch at the top from 2004 to 2008; (rafa is part of this erar!), winning 17 Grand Slam singles titles; reaching the finals of each Grand Slam tournament at least five times (an all-time record); (rafa being part of this era) and reaching the Wimbledon final eight times. He is one of seven men, and one of four in the Open Era, to capture the career Grand Slam.

Federer also shares the Open Era record for most titles at the Australian Open with Agassi and Novak Djokovic (4), at Wimbledon with Pete Sampras (7) and at the US Open with Jimmy Connors and Sampras (5).

Federer has appeared in 24 men’s Grand Slam finals, with 10 in a row, both records,

*******and appeared in 18 of 19 finals from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships through to the 2010 Australian Open. ******

PART OF THE RAFA ERA, BUT HEY THAT DOESN’T COUNT!

He is the only man to reach at least the semifinals of 23 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments, from the 2004 Wimbledon Championships through the 2010 Australian Open.

******PART OF THE RAFA ERA, BUT HEY THAT DOESN’T COUNT!

At the 2013 Australian Open, he reached a record 33rd Grand Slam semi-final,

*****PART OF THE RAFA ERA, BUT HEY THAT DOESN’T COUNT!

and at the 2013 French Open a record 36th consecutive Grand Slam quarter-final. He has also won the most matches, 260, in men’s Grand Slam tournaments.

*****PART OF THE RAFA ERA, BUT HEY THAT DOESN’T CCOUNT!******

Federer’s ATP tournament records include winning six ATP World Tour Finals, playing in the finals at all nine ATP Masters 1000 tournaments

SHOUTING LOUDLY AND CLEARLY I HOPE:
********(a record shared with Djokovic and Nadal)*********

He spent eight years (2003–2010) continuously in the top 2 in the year-end men’s rankings and ten (2003–2012) in the top 3.

Nadal reached the third round of the 2004 Australian Open where he lost in three sets against Australian Lleyton Hewitt (the weak era!)

Nadal lost in the 4th round to eventual runner-up Lleyton Hewitt. (the weak era!) Two months later, Nadal reached the final of the 2005 Miami Masters, and despite being two points from a straight-sets victory, he was defeated in five sets by world No. 1 Roger Federer. (the weak era!).

Both Nadal and Federer won eleven singles titles and four ATP Masters Series titles in 2005. Nadal broke Mats Wilander’s previous teenage record of nine in 1983.

Eight of Nadal’s titles were on clay, and the remainder were on hard courts. Nadal won 79 matches, second only to Federer’s 81.

Wilander:
“Roger is the best, on paper, of all time, but you have to say that the era when he played was the worst of all time. That’s why he was winning so much. Suddenly, Nadal and these guys came up and they’re better than him. But his era had the worst Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 we’ve had – the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Hewitts. That’s one of the reasons why Roger dominated so much. He’s not worse (now). He’s still fighting hard and he’s not winning.”

Navaratilova:
“Well, Roger (Federer) didn’t have much competition for a while either”